State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Moon
2012 OK 77
| Okla. | 2012Background
- Moon, Oklahoma attorney admitted 2004; Bar Association filed a three-count Rule 6 complaint alleging violations of Rule 8.4(b) and Rule 1.3.
- Trial Panel found Moon violated alcohol-related standards and recommended public censure with one year of probation and conditions including sobriety programs and costs.
- Court held de novo review; clear and convincing evidence supports Rule 8.4(b) and 8.4(e) misconduct and recommends public censure with a deferred two-year, one-day suspension.
- Moon had two DUI/arrest episodes (2008 Warr Acres; 2008 Wyoming) and a 2011 vehicle accident; evidence included spitting on an officer, improper badge usage, and attempts to influence authorities.
- Mitigating factors cited include cooperation, remorse, participation in treatment programs (Valley Hope, AA, Lawyers Helping Lawyers), and testimony from colleagues that he posed no danger if supervised.
- The decision emphasizes public protection, accountability, and conditioning probation to aid sobriety; costs of $1,459.55 imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moon violated Rule 8.4(b) and (e) and Rule 1.3 | Bar Association contends clear misconduct from DUI incidents and attempts to influence officials | Moon argues no client harm and some cooperation; ongoing treatment reduces risk | Yes; clear and convincing evidence of violations and misconduct |
| Appropriate discipline for Moon's misconduct | Public censure with deferred two-year, one-day suspension supported by prior cases | Duration of probation should be shorter; less severe discipline | Public censure with deferred suspension of two years and one day, with sobriety terms |
| Role of mitigating evidence and treatment history | Mitigating factors justify leniency in punishment | Addiction history shows ongoing risk | Mitigating factors may reduce severity, but discipline remains warranted |
| Impact of prior arrests and pattern of behavior | Pattern demonstrates indifference to professional obligations | Prior treatment and rehabilitation mitigate risk | Pattern supports disciplinary action and conditioning probation |
| Duty to pay costs and consequences of nonpayment | Costs must be imposed; failure triggers suspension | Moon agreed to pay; nonpayment risks suspension | Costs imposed; nonpayment triggers automatic suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McBride, 175 P.3d 379 (Okla. 2007) (two-year suspended discipline with good standing factors due to addiction history)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Rogers, 142 P.3d 428 (Okla. 2006) (extensive alcohol-related misconduct warranting discipline)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Pacenza, 136 P.3d 616 (Okla. 2006) (multiple alcohol-related violations informing sanctions)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Doris, 991 P.2d 1015 (Okla. 1999) (disbarment or severe discipline for repeated DUI and related misconduct)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Townsend, 60 P.3d 1030 (Okla. 2002) (precedent on disciplinary considerations and cost allocations)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Beasley, 142 P.3d 410 (Okla. 2006) (discipline for alcohol-related misconduct with prior violations)